Email Topic

Recipient Email Address(es):

Personal Message (Optional):

Is there anything Libertarians can learn from last week's election?

Can libertarians win elections? Can they be relevant if they can't? Should republicans be responsive to libertarians if libertarians will not vote for a moderate republican? Should democrats be responsive to libertarians if libertarians will not vote for moderate democrats?

Is there any way that libertarians can find to magnify their voice without being traitors to their principles?

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I believe that libertarians can be a significant voice in American politics if they wish to be. However, the structure of the American electorate will not permit an extremely small group to be influential if it does not work with others.

I think that some people who are drawn to libertarianism have a psychological tendency to be suspicious of any sort of "collective". Consequently, they find it hard to compromise and reflexively recoil from it as inherently contrary to their principles. Am I wrong?

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Compromise is what got the US into this mess. It's the homogenized thinking that allows stupidity to set policy. Compromise is not a virtue.

Since Democracy depends on compromise as a basic part of its operation, that also means Democracy is fatally flawed and why democracies never last long. It's the process of continual compromise right into the abyss that we are experiencing now.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

rob, I would say that the U.S. before the New Deal was pretty darned libertarian - back then, for example, minimum wage laws were rejected as unconstitutional because they infringed on the rights of an employer and an employee to contract as they wished under the ninth and tenth amendments.

Really the problem was the 16th amendment, which allowed the federal government to exercise the power of wealth redistribution. If the federal government were better kept in check, the insidious effects of democracy in the individual states would be compensated for by competition between the states for productive individuals.

The rest of what you say I agree with, except that I think the Libertarian party is pointless. What we need is a Libertarian PAC, which would direct political contributions and volunteer efforts to elect the most libertarian candidates and lobby for libertarian legislation.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Yes, there is a sense of freedom that I find quite odd, but also quite prevalent. Many people think that if there is a strong government that makes people behave in the ways they think appropriate, then they are somehow made free. So fundamentalist Christians are happy to use the powers of the state to punish sinners who flout the commandments of God and socialist liberals are delighted to force "the people" to have the "social conscience" they see fit.

But, I would like to explore what, if anything, libertarians can learn from the election.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Perhaps it would be useful to contrast small-L libertarian philosophy with the big-L Libertarian party, or any party for that matter.

When I describe libertarian philosophy to many people as "fiscally conservative and socially tolerant government" or "constitutionally limited government", many respond that it describes their interests fairly well. They become hung up on the label once I put a party name to it.

The Libertarian Party does tend to consume itself, seemingly by its nature. Groups of strong individualists tend to fling apart unless an issue of some weight exists to draw them together. Even so, the orbits tend to last only as long as that weighty issue remains.

It's natural for citizens who are distracted or ignorant to assume that we must have "the right guys in power" to address big issues. It's the easiest answer. And of course, it's also almost never correct. The power which draws people to those positions almost never draws "the right guys", and quite often corrupts the few who might have been "the right guys".

An unintuitive answer is that we all solve big problems like this all the time, without a central authority. It's like asking a fish about the water, it's hard for people to see that their hundreds of voluntary interactions every day create an emergent structure which resolves most of these issues. We are all "the right guys", and we only need to power to choose with whom we interact.

But most Americans are distracted by other concerns. Politics is dry, populated by liars, intentionally arcane, and usually unpleasant. And most Americans are ignorant of history, unintended consequences, knowledge limitations of centralized power and planning, and the force required to solve issues via government.

So they look for short cuts. Parties are handy short cuts. I support a team, get the jersey, buy a big foam finger, and I'm set. My guy is better than their guy (even if both guys advocate strikingly similar approaches). My team is peopled with the savvy, the perspicacious, and the righteous. Their team is peopled with the stupid, the misled, and the evil. My team *has* "the right guys", so I'm done. Back to finding a new cell carrier and paying insurance premiums.

And we only need two parties. Ever see three teams on a football field?? Of course not. Adding parties complicates things. Things are already too complicated.

And we don't need ideologues. They don't compromise enough to get things done. And we must get things done, even if they are precisely the things which will make our situation much worse. Anything is better than nothing, right? We must be progressive in our thinking, even if we're progressing to bankruptcy. We must be conservative, even if we're conserving bigotry.

Well, perhaps we don't need ideologues, and we do need compromise. But compromise to what ends? Have we selected the ends? And what will be the means?

Personally, my greatest hope lies with the Internet. Disintermediation allows for direct communication like this. Anyone interested in history, trade, and economics can learn more if they'd like. They can learn what made America rich enough to be decadent, rich enough to have poor people who are obese. They can learn that nations with the least government interference in voluntary markets and trade grow the fastest and become the wealthiest. And nations with government that restrict markets and trade beyond responding to force and fraud grow the slowest, and are more likely to fail. Once that genie is out of the bottle, arguments for shortcutting via parties, "the right guys", and force will be harder to make. Poor results will be harder to hide. Big Lies will be harder to maintain.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

"Is there anything Libertarians can learn from last week's election?"Robert Wood; you can do as much as any other citizen! Vote!Giving youself a label, is not patriotic! "I am a Libertarian", dosen't cut any ice, it's a cop-out!You have bs much to say as any other voter! If things don't go your way; it's because there are not enough voters with your opinion! Society did not make you a Libertarian; You must have done it by your own volition!Personally; I don't believe in party afilliation; it makes me feel obligated!In your case; YOU decided to give yourself a "name".Names, don't win elections, votes do!You do not have to reconsider your choice; just act responsible!I wish you good fortune in your future!

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Libertarian has one problem the name it is to close to Liberal...
The Tea Party is full of Libertarians, the problem it seems that the Tea Party has some people who expouse fiscal conservate views, smaller government...but also are Social conservatives, and because of the religious right (never hear of the religious left...maybe caferteria Catholics) they have the organization to run for office.
What is needed is a litmus test, Social conservatism is okay at the local level which fits well with Smaller Government meme. The answer to any and all social issues is I'm running for national office and that in my oppinion is a local/state issue.
I still think that we need a libertarian wing of the Republican Party, and that it should assert itself and take control. I'm not sure if that is possible and it maybe time to break away, let's see what canidates come out for the Pres. nomination of the Repub. Party for 2016....

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

While a agree about the names, I think the source of many of our problems is the large number of economically-illiterate Americans. If that is true, getting people to distinguish between liberal and libertarian is a minor issue.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

The patient died in Nov. 2008. It's just that we just didn't get a confirming opinion until last week.

When the takers outnumber the makers, we have passed the tipping point. I for one was hoping 2008 was a fluke because McCain was such a weak candidate and Obama had the advantage of race. In the past four years, this administration has only increased its base - basically by buying votes with government largess, and last week's vote was merely a confirmation we will continue to get farther out of balance.

If you are looking for silver linings, try this. We all know Romney was not the guy to fix the problems, but merely keep things going. And, it's likely Romney's election would have prevented the right guy from coming along, because without a loss, the GOP could continue to do business as usual and think they were correct in doing so. On the other hand, we all know Obama will be a failure fiscally unless he starts rejecting Keynesian economics. With another 4 years, even the low-information voter may reject liberal policies at the same time the GOP fields a more libertarian candidate.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

The time is ripe for Libertarians to conquer the Republican party in California and win elections under the "Republican" brand. California Republicans are in the wasteland, they have no state-wide elective office and control no branch of government. Their numbers are shrinking and they are a leaderless organization. But they have a recognizable brand name, unlike Libertarians.

The Republican party, under Libertarian management, would be aligned with the majority of voters on social issues (immigration, abortion, gay marriage, marijuana), and would focus solely on fiscal matters, getting the economy going, lowering the tax burden, making tax revenues more stable and predictable and shrinking the size of state government.

But just as its easy today to point out the Republican candidate who is shooting himself in the foot by being on the wrong side of every single social issue California's majority cares about, it's just as easy to see the Libertarian candidate shooting himself in the foot as he scares the holy bejesus out of every voting citizen with rhetoric about returning to the gold standard, abolishing the Fed, and closing every military base in the world.

To win, start small. Balancing the California budget is plenty big enough. Do that and in the next election cycle we'd have some credibility to talk about things that are hard for people who aren't frequently engaged in politics to understand.

Take over the Republican party, talk only about bringing sanity and responsibility to the state's finances and otherwise take every social issue away from the Democrats. That is how the Libertarian party can win elections.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

The problem with libertarians is that they are a bit like Minutemen. They answer the call when needed, but then want to go home when the fighting is over. It's not that we don't get along, but we do want to be free to pursue happiness in our own way.

Unfortunately, if it wasn't already so, this president has made politics a permanent process. Anyone who goes home cedes ground to the person who keeps pushing. The end result is that the political class has taken over, and I don't see much hope for the amateurs politicians winning out over the professional ones.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Well, this has been a thoroughly unscientific poll, and the sample is quite small so far. The tally as I see it as of tonight.

“Can libertarians learn from the election?”

Bill Gradwohl says no. Nothing positive to learn. Even democracy itself is fatally flawed. Also adds that voting itself is useless.Rob Katsky says yes. Learn the art of politics and don’t think we can win every battle.Ruediger Sahm did not attempt to answer the question.Richard Stands gives a qualified yes. Libertarians, being strong individualists, usually can’t work together much less with others in a formal party setting. The answer is to continually work one-on-one to convince people of libertarian principles. Thinks the internet might be helpful through disintermediation.Amerigo Cimino says yes. Libertarians can learn that Robert Wood can vote.Randy Ribarchak says yes. Start small – local and state, maybe some U.S. Representatives. Set realistic goals and find marginal victories.Norman Blanton says yes. Apply a litmus test to social conservatives. Vote for them at local levels, but don’t vote for affirmative social conservatives at the national level. Establish a libertarian wing of the republican party if possible or break from republicans if not. Wait and see who runs in 2016.Jack Marse says yes. Libertarians can learn that all is futile.Gene Mckenna says yes. Grab control of the California republican party. But also drop demands for return to the gold standard, abolishing the Fed and bringing all American troops home. Put a few victories under our belts before moving into more controversial issues.

(If I've misrepresented anyone above, please post a correction.)

Those who had constructive suggestions include Rob Katsky, Randy Ribarchak and Gene Mckenna. Norman Blanton offers a helpful suggestion, but I don’t think it includes anything new. All the other answers are irrelevant, fatalistic or even nihilistic. There have been a very large number of posters to the question “Did the GOP learn anything…” who also appear to be libertarian fatalists and nihilists. I’m not saying that the fatalists are wrong, but they have self-deselected from any group of libertarians who are willing to work at having some influence in US politics.

I agree with Rob, Randy and Gene. If libertarians are to magnify their voice, they must start small, identify the most important issues, both those which they support and those they oppose, and the issues on which they are most likely to be successful, work with the major parties – yes, both of them – before their primaries to push those agendas. Let them know that they can support or will not support primary candidates in the general election. And deliver those votes as promised. Randy thinks that libertarians comprise 10-15% of the electorate. If libertarians can tell the democratic party that it can pull 10% of votes cast to or away from a candidate, and deliver, then that candidate would be all but assured of victory or defeat and the attention of the democratic party would be guaranteed.

I think libertarians can magnify their voice in American politics. It can be done only through discipline, leadership, judiciously picking battles and, yes, messy, uncertain compromise. That is the lesson I draw from the election. I don't know if it can be done. If it can't, then the fatalists are right.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Robert Wood, You make a case, and I applaude your research. The question is about Libertarians, or Libertarianism. No group or Party, Organization, it is the number of participants that matter. Given enough members; you have a voice. The Democratic Party, which has no agenda, has re-elected a non-entity, to the highest office in the Universe! Political rhetoric is paramount to action! Titles of any sort, are re-named or demonized, to give them different points of view! Can you assess the people who vote? Do the voters need a degree in any profession to cast a ballot? Being a Libertarian is a noble gesture; nothing more. The gesture is personal, and in the greater picture, a hope that more pople will take up the banner. If there are no more numbers, The Libertarian Party is doomed.I have a suggestion for the Libertarians; put your efforts toward for the enactment of the Fair Tax bill!

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

My lesson is: although I do not plan to join any party, I intend to support them (and Mises Institute), which will also de some distribution of their materials. I hope to see some libertarians on the ballot in two years. Once they start to exist on the local level, perhaps there will be a chance to build something.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I know very few people who identify themselves as Libertarians, but the ones I do know are very unpredictable in their political views, even more so than moderates from the main parties. The big problem with Libertarianism, in my admittedly limited view, is that there are so many ways that the other parties can attack it, especially concerning community issues.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Good insight, Lowell. I tend to libertarian viewpoints, but libertarians seem to be a small group of individualists who just don't get along with each other, much less with others. Libertarians seem to be by nature people who can not compromise with anyone.

As a Californian, I have few options. To maximize my voice I can remain a republican with a libertarian leaning, I can re-register as an independent or I can register as a libertarian. Registering as an independent seems to be the prudent thing to do.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Please consider that there are people of principal who view certain things as plain wrong and therefore can't compromise. To compromise would be to deny their conscience and intellect.

To keep hoping that some savior will come along via the electoral process is fantasy. Ron Paul offered his services and was rejected. He was the best option the country had. He would have used the office to tell the American people the cold hard truth and would have been a one term president. The American public can't handle the truth and doesn't want to hear anything that remotely sounds negative. Let the party continue and please add more liquor to the punch bowl.

The American system of governance - namely democracy, where the majority, no matter how stupid, demands their voice be actualized is the root of the problem. Democracy will prevail all the way to the inevitable crash.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Bill Gradwohl, I have considered what you have posted several times. I don't agree with you, but I'm certainly not going to argue with you about it. You've said that you won't compromise and I accept that.

I know that I can't get everything I want and if I don't advocate and negotiate in concert with others for what I think is important, then I get nothing. So, I was wondering if the libertarian party could be helpful. I fully accept that if most libertarians think the way you do, then the answer is no, and I need to look elsewhere.

Send a Message

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

I don't claim to be a Libertarian, so I'd suggest you look elsewhere for a model Libertarian.

I lean more towards anarchism in the true dictionary sense of the term. I trust no government because history proves that none are trustworthy in the long run. Switzerland is probably the best government on the planet, if we absolutely must have one for the average person to feel secure.

Much of what is argued about is merely opinion. Voting on a topic and then forcing everyone to submit to the same opinion is nonsense. If half the country want something one way, and the other half the other way then common sense should dictate that there should be no consensus and to each his own. It is the coercive attitude of the state and the voting public that wants to foist their opinions down everyone's throat via the force of law that I object to.

Most of the time I won't compromise because the thing being discussed shouldn't be up for discussion with the intent to form a law one way or the other. The discussion assumes there is only one answer and that answer will be arrived at by voting - mob rule.

I believe we can agree that murder is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Is gay marriage wrong, for example? By whose standard? Why does there have to be only one view on the matter why not live and let live?

The aim is always to create new rules and regulations. When do we get to discuss rolling back those we already have? Example - Real Estate taxes. There should be no such thing. If the state can take it away from you then you don't own it. Why should we pay school taxes? The state has no business being in the education field. Schools should be paid for by the people with kids and then they should hold the institution accountable. You can't hold the state accountable for anything.

There are tons more examples I could cite, but the gist of my uncompromising attitude is that we are already drowning in laws, rules and regulations. We don't need any more.

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

Journal Community

Make a Connection

Journal Community

Your message has been sent.

If half the country want something one way, and the other half the other way then common sense should dictate that there should be no consensus and to each his own.

^This and This >...we are already drowning in laws, rules and regulations. We don't need any more.

The essence of libertarian philosophy. Nicely done.

The former is my argument for why there can be no law re: abortion. Because there are so many vastly different and entrenched opinions about the issue, there can only be one resolve - let each couple choose for themselves alone.

All of the social conservatives and far left do-gooders are convinced that you CAN legislate morality and make society better by using state force to coerce utopia. It has been tried repeatedly throughout history only to fail miserably. We learn nothing from history, more's the pity. Americans have a particular penchant for pursuing moral perfection and trying to drag government into this pursuit as their billy club.

All that happens when vice is penalized is that it goes underground. Prostitution is the perfect example. The oldest profession - outlawed by almost every society in the world up to the present time. Has it been eradicated? Not even close.

Now, you will challenge me - do you believe in any laws? Yes, I do. I even believe in some industry regulation. It is unfortunate but we do tend toward avarice when ungoverned. So, taking someone's life, possessions, free will should merit penalties. We should not be able to interfere with each other in this manner.

However, that is where the sticky wicket of libertarianism enters the fray. Where do you draw the line?

Take my above argument for abortion, for example - someone could say I am abrogating the rights of the unborn being by terminating the pregnancy. I could counter with my opinion that it is a pre-born being which cannot have rights and that all of our laws are based on the definition of a "person" being one that is born. And it could go on and on and on and on with neither side budging.

That is why, in my view, some issues for which no consensus can be had - choose for yourself is the only compromise that is tenable. Thank you for pointing that out Bill Gradwohl.